22/03/2023 02:26, Huang, Wei: > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > 21/03/2023 09:41, Huang, Wei: > > > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > > > 21/03/2023 01:11, Huang, Wei: > > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > > > > > 16/03/2023 21:44, Wei Huang: > > > > > > > VDEV bus has implemented cleanup() function to perform cleanup > > > > > > > for devices on the bus during eal_cleanup(), so there is no > > > > > > > need for ifpga driver to record virtual devices and unplug them. > > > > > > > > > > > > Why no need? > > > > > > If the application wants to explicitly remove a device, what > > > > > > happens? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > EAL will output an error information "Cannot find plugged device > > > > > (%s)". > > > > > > > > It does not look what we expect. > > > > > > > Let me clear it. > > > With this patch, no error information will be outputted. > > > Without this patch, error information will be outputted. > > > Because bus cleanup action will unplug virtual device, then ifpga PMD > > > unplug the virtual device which is already be cleanup, > > > > Why ipfga unplug the device after the bus cleanup? > > I'm not following. > > > The virtual device is created upon ifpga, if VDEV bus doesn't perform cleanup, > ifpga has the responsibility to unplug these virtual devices.
Really I don't understand the flow. Are you talking about EAL cleanup case? What happens first? Do you need ifpga to be called first? I think you need the correct checks to allow any order of cleanup. > > > bus->find_device() returns NULL, > > > EAL output "Cannot find plugged device (%s)\n" at line 302 in > > > eal_common_dev.c > > > > Anyway, the good answer is not to completely remove the "remove" > > operation. > > > If not to completely remove the "remove", the same virtual device will be > unplug twice, is it reasonable? You need to add a check to not unplug something already unplugged. But you must allow the user calling "remove" directly.
